Doug McCuiston will share his experiences of a project that required huge ingenuity, continual design innovation and the management of an entirely unique set of challenges encountered when trying to land a car sized robotic rover on a planet with conditions not replicable on Earth.

One would think by all the slavering to send manned space missions here there and everywhere in the near future that the technologies involved in Space travel were all done and dusted. The truth is that we are only on the threshold of development of the kind of vehicles and propulsion systems that will ultimately be required to achieved the level of reliability that is needed. We must get beyond the current situation where every launch and particularly every landing, has the mision teams staring at their instrumentation with bated breath. Will it work??? Still very much a wing and a prayer situation I'm afraid . Missions to Mars are or should be seen as the test track on which we develop the advanced systems that will be required,if we are ever to voyage outside our own back yard ! We have in my opinion a long way to go before we send men to Mars. In Space ships as in aircraft the weakest link in the chain is the man in the cockpit,even if he does little more than observe.
It is nonsense to say that a man's on the spot judgement is needed to determine whether or not life or the potential for it exists on some distant planet. The robotic sampling systems and instrumentation that we can/could now produce will provide all the data on which to make the judgements and reach the conclusions as to the significance of what has been discovered. But we need a vehicle of a design capable of carrying them there and putting then carefully down on the surface,as well as bringing back samples of what is being found.
As for the exploration of Mars , why we have only scratched the surface as yet. What's all the hurry? We have plenty of time in which to do things properly!

Pope Gregory the Thirteen's synthesis of ecclesiastic and secular accounts of history into the Gregorian calendar defines a transformation between any (arbitrary) scalar (magnitude only) and (temporally dependent) vector (magnitude and direction).

··A(n infinitely differentiable) linear functional (distributive both over the sum of two contravariant vectors - vector components 'contravary' to preserve invariance under a transformation - and with a contravariant vector for scalar multiplication) defined on a real (number) Euclidean Inner Product Space (Vector Space with an Inner Product) maps (turns) a contravariant vector (something with a magnitude and direction in)to a real number and the set of all linear functionals (all contravariant vector to real number maps) forms a Dual (covariant) Vector (also called a oneform whose components covary under a transformation) Space (whose elements are linear functionals assigning a real number to each Vector Space element - contravariant vector - and which is distributive over a oneform both for the addition of two linear functionals and for scalar multiplication) with a defined continuous class zero map Φ where for any adjacent local coordinate neighborhoods; ordered tuples; points there is a scalar - real number - α such that || Φ(x) - Φ(y) || <= α|| x - y || (the length || of a right angle triangle's straight line hypotenuse - the shortest distance between two adjacent points defining a spa-time-tial structure - from Pythagoras is the square root of the sum of it's height and base respectively squared which is standardized in physics by time to speed is - the change in - distance with respect to - the change in - time respectively s=d/t and economics to income is - the change in - property with respect to - the change in - time respectively y=p/t), generating (by their - Vector Space and Dual Vector Space - construction) a different (to their Euclidean Inner Product Space straight line hypotenuse distance) metric (defining their spa-time-tial structure) in the mutually adjacent Tensor (produced from contravariant vectors and oneforms with a magnitude and more than one direction consequently) Space formed by the set of all bilinear functionals (whose elements are linear functionals assigning a real number to each pair of Vector Space elements - contravariant vectors - and which is distributive - symmetric - for the addition of a third contravariant vector to either - contravariant vector - argument and distributive over either argument for scalar multiplication) functionals mapping two contravariant vectors to a real number, with an arc shaped hypotenuse distance (arc length definite integral between points) metric and corresponding spherical Tensor Spa-time-tial character (structure) produced from at least one (mutually adjacent) contravariant vector (Vector Space) and oneform (Dual Vector Space) mapping (transformation), but where the arc shaped (Tensor Space) metric between any two adjacent (propertytime) points can be considered to be a straight line called a geodesic (resulting from a - n infinitesimally and hence flat like an image of a town is flat while the earth is round - 'parallely transported' tangent vector along the arc shaped hypotenuse between points) preserving any valid economic law (like the law of demand and supply) relative to a particular (Euclidean Inner Product Space and hence straight line hypotenuse distance metric) coordinate system and hence Galilean Equivalence, providing another window for looking at the economy and opening the door to another class of solutions.

*The linear functional which maps each contravariant vector to the real number zero is the Dual Vector Space 'zero vector' in the limit satisfying the inequality above for all x, y and scalars α.

· An (two dimensional Euclidean here - the product of two vectors - like directed line segments, matrices, or polynomials - is the sum of their respective component products) Inner Product (a function associating two vectors with a real number) specification for a Property-(bundle of rights divisible indefinitely)-Time VectorSpace (set where - both standard here - addition and scalar multiplication between elements - vectors - is defined, closed under addition and scalar multiplication, commutative and associative for addition, associative and distributive for scalar multiplication, zero, unity and negated vectors defined) provides the apparatus for defining the distance between two (vectors - propertytime) points using Pythagoras' theorem (giving propertytime a structure) and establishing a relational prosperity metric (income) equal to (the change in) property with respect to (the change in) time (y=p/t), with any valid economic law (like the law of supply and demand) relative to a particular (propertytime) coordinate system also being valid relative to any other coordinate system with the same propertytime and distance definition (the same inner product space and hence prosperity metric), for instance under the linear transformation (a rotation) of the (IS-)LM model's money market (the x=m/p real money horizontal axis and y=r interest rate vertical axis) coordinate system (to combine it with the National Income Accounting Identity's (r, Y) coordinate system into a comprehensive model of the economy) to the LM curve coordinate system (the x=r interest rate horizontal axis and y=Y total income vertical axis) the law of supply and demand remains intact because propertytime (t, p) is the same (they share the same inner product space) in both (Y, M and P are all forms of property, r is the time value of money (property) and distance is defined by Pythagoras).

I say, keep the Jet Propulsion Laboratory funded for it has achieved splendid accomplishments with unmanned space crafts and shut down Houston and manned space programs. Another visit to the moon will achieve nothing. And, an unmanned spacecraft could be used to bring Martian soil sample back for a lot less than sending a man there.

Better still, encourage the Chinese to do these things if manned space flights are fancied. As the saying goes, a fool and his money are easily parted. China has money and generally behaves foolish.

Unfortunately (for EUSSR's fellow travellers) US is concentrating on extracting more&more oil and gas from its gigantic domestic resoures (shale) which in the near future will make it a net exporter of both to the rest of the world.

There is so much Americans can learn from Brits. We should heed your (their) advice and leave space exploration/development to the BRICs. Let them waste zillions on the technological challenges. Perhaps we can use their version of a future "Skycrane" to lift us out of some morass into which we've fallen. While we're on the topic, we should leave finance to London since clearly they have it all under control.

The USA should stick to growing corn (we've already forfeit soybeans to the "B" in BRIC). Soon, we'll spend our days buying X-mas presents and staring agape at our iPads pondering all the foolishness in the world. Or not.

Most likely, not much. The time of sending robots to Mars has all but past. It seems that over the years, the "discoveries" have been pretty incremental, and have certainly lead to far more questions then answers....answers a well trained human could have found in a matter of weeks (if not days). And that same well trained human could have then gone on to ask even bigger, tougher questions then whether the junk that looks like mud is actually mud.

Don't get me wrong...I see the reason for robots: we need to learn everything we can before we sent people. But at the end of the day, we should never forget that robots are no where near as competent and versatile as people, and the use of robots is merely a stepping stone to sending people.

I find contradiction in most of your remarks! The time is not far distance when computer controlled sensors and instrumentation systems will far outstrip man's ability,versatile though he may be.His competence and reliability are always open to judgement.

Not sure what to tell you other then you are just wrong: computers and certainly robots are no where close to as intelligent as and most importantly for this type of mission as versatile as humans. Yours is just a pipedream....perhaps due to a fundamental misunderstanding of our current level of technological development. Movies/shows like The Terminator, The Matrix, and BSG suggest that we are just about there, but the reality is the more we learn about neuroscience (a subject I know a lot about professionally), the more we see that even if you could somehow unify all of the computers in the world the level of complexity and capabilities of a single human mind would still be superior. Oh computers are awesome at doing certain types of tasks. And certainly the robots we have sent to Mars have done some nifty things, a trained team xenogeologists in space suits, with a Mars dune buggy, and with a lab at their disposal would do more in a day then all of the machines that have ever been sent to Mars.

As for the xenogeologists' competence and "reliability" (whatever that means), ok...and your point? Speaking as someone that works with huge, multi-million dollar computers every day, computers are amazingly competent at getting the wrong answer very-very quickly. Happens all the time. To put it another way: computers aren't Gods, they are just tools.

Ultimately, successful Mars exploration will not be an either human OR machine proposition. What successful Mars exploration will look like is a sold human/machine synergy. There are some things that machines are really good at and we should take advantage of these talents. But don't for a second believe that those couple of talents in any way take the place of a human being. We're just no where close yet.

Hello Lance.
First thank you for your prompt and lucid response.Yours is the level of argument that needs to be more current in these discussions.,and I am always pleased when I can provoke it .

My viewpoint on manned Space Exploration is based simply on my opinion that Human Beings are too fragile both mentally and physically and all too capable of making fatal misjudgements in critical situations, to send on deep space voyages.Maybe when space vehicles have been developed that can provide a more suitable environment in which humans can feel comfortable they can be sent ,but in my opinion that is still some way in the future .To repeat previous remarks ,making provisions for human crews is still the most expensive aspect of the design of any flying machines.
That Human judgement is a vital part of the analysis of data provide by unmanned exploration devices I do not deny but it does not need to be exercised on the surface of some alien world ,certainly not while human beings are such a high risk component of any Space Mission . Back on Earth, Humans , at no risk to themselves ,or the remote sensor systems involved, can study the data sent ,or brought back, with all the most advanced equipment at their disposal.
What is needed is the development of unmanned vehicles capable of operating more reliably and with the capacity to transport the more advanced kind of exploration equipment that we are already able to produce. In this respect weight and size are currently severe handicaps. We need also to be able to readily return samples to Earth.
You may feel perhaps that the handicap introduced by the unavoidable communication delay is better dealt with by having humans making decisions on the spot. But many such decisions may require a consensus opinion so that the communication delayis still present

To finish after cutting myself off prematurely. In essence I don't think that our views on Space exploration are widely different,except that I believe that we are stil a long way from being able to launch a purposeful manned mission to Mars.
Oh sure within the next few decades we could maybe attempt to 'go there because its there' accepting a high human risk in so doing,and achieving little else of real value. I think that we already know now that there is no life on Mars,although there might have been in the past.I suppose determing the latter is a boxed ticked ,but I suspect that we may find more conclusive evidence for Extra Terrestrial life elsewhere in the Universe.
In respect of my view of the pace of technological development,I will say to you that I began a lifelong involvement with Electronics in 1941,so its not difficult at 87 to believe that almost anything one can think of is 'just around the corner'

My thoughts would be to delay big investments till the world gets a grip over the current state of economy. The temperament of the world is not healthy now with news flooding with failed business and bailed out countries. Technology and exploratory investments will be better received when people have a more positive outlook towards the economy and self.

I think that, unfortunately, your wish is about to come true. Apart from a Russian missile developed in the 1950's (and a seldom used Chinese derivative), there are no more machines on Earth capable of taking people to space. And, for the last 40 years, no one has left the Earth's atmosphere.

I don't remember a time when there were no big problems to solve on Earth. Saying that we need to solve them all before going to space would mean eternal confinment to this planet. I count myself among those deeply dissatisfied with that.

I agree with you on that we cant solve every problem on earth before we start exploring outside earth. Probably some of the current issue like the property bubble in places like London can be solved by exploring new posh properties on Mars. Or energy issues by drilling holes on Mars and Moon for new hydrocarban finds or sources of enery? However, my thoughts would be that we still need to focus our attention on getting us all out from negative growth percentages to a healthy number before we stretch our foot into the universe.

The James Webb Telescope still is not ready. Actually, launch postponed one more time, and will happen not early than 2018.
It is really hard to understand from where did you got your information about launch in 2014 :D
And second, the overall cost of the current project is bigger than $6 bln already. I guess that it will be postponed even after 2018, and the budget of it will increase on a few billions, than planned for now.
P.S. For 20 years would be much more profitable to make a real plan about moon landing than telescope for such a big price, but this is NASA - money means nothing to them)))

They were busy taking pictures of Venus' surface, building the ISS and sending American astronauts into orbit SINCE no one can do this, even with billions in budget.

By the way, even if you are uneducated troll, i'll tell you that FIRST succesfull landing on Mars and FIRST photo from martian surface was made by Russian station in may 1971. Few years early than NASA did it.

US politicians and administrators in all seriousness, these days, have said things like 'we need to keep up our military spending because so many jobs depend on it' and 'we need to keep up our space spending because so many jobs depend on it'.

This is putting the horse before the cart. It is arse about tit as my British friends would say. First identify the need. Then spend the money. That way you don't waste billions on things you don't need.

What do you mean to avoid the layoffs at JPL? Those started more than two years ago. This announcement is probably too late for the (hundreds?) of lay-offs that are probably going to hit after the first of the year. These are people they won't need for a few years for this new rover now that Curiosity has landed.

I remember the 1969 - 70's as a time when NASA sent several teams to the moon. I am not sure that much science was performed after the first mission, or that all of the actual science could not have been accomplished in one mission.

But now that NASA is looking for a new reason to exist and spend more money, Mars will see the same kind of repeated missions, each incrementally different than the last. I am not sure science is the main goal, rather than just keeping the empire alive. More photographs from Mars does what exactly? Neither active rovers can detect life, so what is the point? Until we can send a real break-though rover we should just hold-off.

At least the Shuttle is finished wasting the NASA budget with circus-like performances.

Any money spent on robots and unmanned probes is money not wasted on idiotic manned flight, including the International Space Station and the junk science too often performed there (unfortunately extended by Obama to 2020).

That's when the sun expands as it burns out.
Getting off the planet means extended time in Zero-G, as just getting to Mars - with today's rockets/engines - takes 6 months.
Best to find out what happens to the human body by using ever increasing time on the ISS to study it.

Haha...yeah, because robots can do anywhere near what humans can do.....

Clue: we are DECADEs if not CENTURIES away from having robots that could be anywhere as autonomous and as exploratory as a single, well trained human.

Continuing to hang our hopes on robots is what's idiotic. Case and point: mission supervisors (on earth...light minutes away) decide they want to see what's on the other side of a gorge....so IF they can actually chart a course there, months later the rover might make it there. And then once the rover gets there, the supervisors find there there is something there, but because they didn't happen to pack the right experiment or gear, there is nothing else to do by look at it with their camera. And then speculate...and speculate some more. A human on the other hand would just simply do his job.

Somewhere along the way we have become so arrogant and so fascinated with our own creations that we seem to have imagined a non-reality that our creations are anywhere near as competent as we are. That time may come....but we are no where near it yet.

Clue: we are DECADES if not CENTURIES away from having humans that are anywhere as disposable and independent of EXPENSIVE, HEAVY life-support systems as a single, automated and remotely-controlled robot.

"Space is a hostile place for humans. All their needs must be met by bringing a hospitable environment up from a steep gravity well, the cost of which is enormous. The missions must be planned to avoid stressing our fragile organisms. We need food, water and air requiring complicated and heavy equipment. All this machinery needs to be monitored, reducing an astronaut’s available time to carry out experiments. Its shear weight alone reduces substantially the useful payload." - PhysOrg.

None of these reasons are compelling enough for humans to sit at home on our hands.

Robots are and will always be a stopgap and a way of learning as much as possible about an environment before sending humans. If our only desire is to just send robots then I just as soon not send anything at all.

Hi,
helio’a’Hooping” Today I went back a few hundred years and visited “The Raphael” exhibition in Haarlem Holland. To the future the results coming from Voyager 1 Probe are difficult to understand magnetic fields are most commonly defined in terms of the Lorentz force as grass fields the cow. For the Lorentz force you need a force on a point charge . What are these thing doing out there?

Do we have the same decision making process at NASA as at the Pentagon? First declare the mission and then we will figure out the purpose. I guess it makes sense if you understand that Congress makes the funding decisions. So it is bound to result in an asinine decision.